Wiki it. I have no idea how it works exactly or how the probabilities would take place but my roomate (who did take genetics) assured me that it is much more complex. The discussion is moot anyway since the human genome project would have theoretically discovered the 'magic gene' at some point during the 1990s.

 

I really don't see where you're going with this. Firstly, the discussion was obviously on the maths and not the genetics. Secondly, what does the human genome project have to do with anything? Thirdly, I doubt that we can prove that no magic gene exists using the human genome project (I could go on).

 

@Seratin
You'd have to live in a cave to not know about him. He has been in the news practically every day since they dicovered what he did.

How about this. The probability to have 30 is (1/2)^50. The probability to have 31 is also (1/2)^50 and so on...
P(30 or 31 or ...)= P(30)+P(31)+...

So: (21)*(1/2)^50 = ~1,9*10^(-14)

 

@Gummiball, no do you actually know him? Because that would make up for the fail that comes from your posts.

 

I would already have, had I really wanted °ç°.

However, I will do this:

Actually, that obviously doesn't work either, because it's linear. The (1/2)^50 was only the probability of having all 50. It works, because there is only one way to turn 50 switches on. The problem is, if you want to turn on only 49 for example, it's the same thing as having one off. Naturally, you could turn the first one off, or the second, etc with all fifty. So there the probability is 50*(1/2)^50.

If you want to know more, look up binomial coefficient on wikipedia (if you just want the answer though, it is 10.1%)

 

Thank you, Oz. This is starting to get mildly irritating, take it to PM or something.

 

While this story isn't great, it is interesting enough that I keep reading it. Might I inquire as to when the new chapter is?

 

You may not

 

NOooooo!

I hate you Custer.

I thought there was an update.

 

One thing that I unfortunately dislike is the whole "magic is genetic" thing.

I think it was a huge mistake on Rowling's part to open this can of worms by saying something to the effect of, "Well, um, I think its genetic. Its a dominant trait." Unfortunately, Rowling has (like several other topics on which she's commented) absolutely no idea what she's talking about.

From what we know in canon, magic is not a multigenic thing, its a single allele; albeit one that seems to have a rather high mutation rate, given the existence of muggleborns and squibs. Disregarding the fact that a single mutation in DNA leads to a protein that at most is one amino acid different than in muggles then suddenly makes you magical seems more than a bit absurd to me, at least, multigenic magic doesn't make any more sense given what we know: magic is either something you have or don't, there is no variance. Variance in ability comes from practice - kinda like playing the violin or something. People aren't born with generous heaps of violin-playing ability; at best, they are a little more dextrous and the finger manipulation comes more natural - like a more studious person might study harder, or dexterity allows for better wand movements. Even still, practice can make a person way better than any type of natural ability.

Therefore, no advanced calculations needed for multigenic effects!

Though there was some likelihood for epigenetics if JKR hadn't opened her mouth stupidly.

-Kevin

 

Ok, you obviously don't know what you're talking about, and you're reviving a debate which had blissfully died out.

So that was just worthless.

 

Right, You've quite obviously taken Bio 101 much more recently than I, so you are assuredly an expert.

As far as the most recent chapter of the story goes, I think there are some interesting ideas. I think the author uses Arithmancy well - a little vague so that we aren't sure exactly what's going on and aren't bogged down by, "Oh, well this is 11 because...", but specific enough that we know what the hell its used for a little - a failing on JKR's part in canon, I feel.

The Parsel magic idea has always been interesting; if not totally an original idea from him, I think he goes farther and does it better than any other story I've read, at least.

Harry/Fleur looks like it might happen soon, so that's good - definitely never enough of that pairing, so two thumbs up for that.

The whole Mad-Eye thing is also a little better than in canon, where Dumbledore is blind to the whole, 'Dur...my old friend's been replaced by a Death Eater?' situation, which does his character a disservice.

Interesting on the whole, and I'll keep on reading this story.

-Kevin

 

Actually, that made me think of an interesting point. I read the chapter two weeks ago, so I can't be sure, but wouldn't Dumbledore worry about what the imposter had done with the real Moody? If you're choosing to make him Cynical!ForTheGreaterGood!Dumbledore, then that's fine, but I personally think that Moody's health would be one of his major preoccupations. Not bringing up the ussue at all seems a bit off.

 

Why would he talk with Harry about Moody's health?

 

Both good points above, I think. True, he should at least make some attempt to monitor fakeMoody to ensure that realMoody is okay, but he might not think its any of Harry's business (which I agree with).

Harry might at least overhear something about it, though. Of course, if your Dumbledore just wants to give off the facade of actually caring and not really care, then it might not be important. I don't think you're playing him that way, though. He also might figure Moody can take care of himself and wouldn't want him to worry about it. Again, though, I think that'd be a pretty bastard thing to do; just as I think letting him rot is kind of a bastard thing to do, even if it makes sense so that you don't have to think up another way to force the confrontation at the end of the Third Task.

 

Well, again, from memory, they basically shared observations that Moody was an imposter, but as this became clearer, at no point did they ask themselves 'what did he do with the real Moody?'. I don't know why he talked of the issue with Harry, but they were making plans, considering the best action, and at no point did the real Moody seem to come up. Saving his life would, I think, be among Dumbledore's priorities.

I don't really agree on the way in which they decide to deal with it generally in any case. It seems like a very big gamble - although I don't think canon Dumbledore wouldn't have done it; it's actually a good observation from Joe: in PS that is pretty much the way in which they dealt with Quirrell. I just don't see why they can't give him veritaserum, and possibly let him deceive Voldemot into thinking nothing bad has happened, to avoid the hydra syndrome thing. I also think sometimes this concept of your enemy comming back even more dangerous is brought a it too far. If you can fend off an attack effectively in chess, you do; you don't go with nonsense like 'if I don't let him attack now, he might try it again later...'

 

Just a question...

Does anyone other than oephyx and kmfrank actually CARE about the genetics of magic or shit like that? Just make a topic in some other category, and talk about the boring crap there.

my 2 cents.

 

No one cares.

They know that no one cares.

People have subtly (and not so subtly) hinted that they should discuss it over PMs, so don't get it started again. Just leave it alone.